smunisto

Why would you need mods? 2 Orange tanks the heaviest wheels, the claw and a probe core = win.

Thank you for this. I was under the (apparently wrong) impression that each mod that comes bundled with ModStatistics has some changes to its own code to make the reporting possible. For example users reported ScanSat being broken without the ModStatistics folder, but this is not credible information. Anyways, I will test it personally tonight. Hope all is well.

Hi Ferram. After the whole issue with ModStatistics and the final say made by Squad in the face of KasperVld here, could you, as the author of one of the largest mods in the community, who also chose to start bundling them with ModStatistics, make a statement with your official position on the following: The new add-on rules come into effect starting 21 August 2014 and are not applied retrospectively, but no one can say whether Majiir will take action to make his plugin comply with the new rules or not. I want to humbly ask if it is possible for you to release a version of FAR, NEAR and KJR that is not bundled and does not use ModStatistics in any way? I want to continue to use your amazing mods without the addition of unwanted third party data collection services, doing so without my explicit consent. Note: This post IS NOT intended to create yet another useless discussion about whether or not Majiir's mod complies with the regulatory framework of entities like the EU, countries and separate regulations and/or directives. Dear forum user, please do not answer. I am only asking for Ferram's answers, if possible.

My impressions were that FAR and KJR break if ModStatistics is deleted outright. I am wrong then, for which I am sorry. The following wall of text is offtopic, so I will put it in code tags to distinguish it better, because as we all know - ModStatistics is a hornet's nest and Rbray's mod thread is not the place to discuss it. However disabling it by a .cfg for some reason does not give me any confidence that it will not send any data. I have yet to filter outgoing connections during KSP play and check what goes where. Until such a time I remain highly skeptical towards the purpose and methods for data delivery by the mod and its author. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely always accept conspiracy theories with irony and laughter, but I don't like being forced into using something that has unclear purpose and methods. I am not obliged to check the source code (neither I will learn how to do it in the first place) to convince myself in the purpose of something I never wanted to use anyways. Especially something developed by a third party, not affiliated with either Squad or any credible data storage/analysis companies. Sending information for someone's personal "excel analysis charts" hobby is not something I would do without my explicit consent and provision of sufficient (read "complete") description of the methodology and technical details of the data collection and delivery systems by the author.

Agh, the teases. Are you not going to update the part packs with some of the new parts? Also, we can just delete the legacy IR parts and use yours if we so desire, right?

Bear in mind that most mods have hardcoded dependancy on the phishing mod that modstatistics is. Outright deleting it may(and probably will) break one of those mods.

The current version is also stated on the thread title. Everything else you download is obviously not a release version, but some sort of dev. It's a question of simple mod logic. Now, if this is one of your first encounters with the mod scene, then I agree - it can be a bit confusing, even though finding the overhaul versions on GitHub points to the fact that the person downloaded it intentionally.

No, you should use 7-3, this is the most recently updated version, as is stated in the thread name. The "Overhaul" releases were only up as dev versions for testing and they do not support any of the third party released packs such as Astronomer's one or Better Atmospheres. As such - the overhaul is not something you should use. It is stated in the first post.

It depends what mods you use. Stuff like MKS/OKS is the perfect payload for 5m for the outer planets. That's why there's 5m. It's not for the stock users by any means. IF you run mostly stock and some small mods that don't require much dV investment, then yes - the 5m parts will be an overkill for you.

Yup, needs a thread. I needed to use google to find this thread after seeing custom navballs on some person's screenshots on another mod thread. Also, all textures made by people here are great, but how can I get the "cross" effect as an overlay to my navball. I am talking about the 1px horizontal and vertical lines crossing each other at the direction marker.

Bac9 said they are working on B9 r5. Please learn to read the respective threads. It will be a few more weeks.

I am sorry to not test it before I ask, but will it mess up with Editor Extensions? Both mods edit parts of the UI that are quite close to each other, so I am wondering?

Then you might be looking at a bug, such config should not have much problems(unless you throttle to 100% all the time and don't follow the velocity vector closely). However if you don't follow the velocity vector closely your rocket would just flip out of control. I guess you would have said so. Are the parts inside the fairing listed as "Shielded = True"? If not - you are looking at a bug. However if they are, and they still fall out it may be a few things such as: 1. The antennas themselves have low breaking factor(or whatever the cfg modifier for this is called), and they just snap off. 2. The atmospheric failure does not necessarily mean drag issues, in 90% of the cases these failures that Ferram introduced just mean you are doing too harsh maneuvers, such as increasing the AoA to more than 10 degrees rapidly, or making other rapid course corrections. Try to launch the rocket straight up(0 deg heading), and start turning once you are above 60 km. If your antennas still fall out then - the problem is likely to be something related to breaking force or attachment nodes of the antennas themselves, not FAR or PF.

What exactly do your satellites look like? I've never had any trouble launching a rocket with FAR and PF(or even without it and with a sensible craft). Give us some screenshots. Perhaps you are not designing your rockets correctly, or your satellites are too unbalanced(but from what I remember from RT - its antennas are pretty compact and light). In any case try an overkill ascent stage, with enough dV(about 5k) to get your payload to 30-35 km before starting your turn. At this point the AoA is no longer important, since the atmosphere is already thin enough. Also do not use more than 1.5 TWR, since with FAR this always means you are doing it wrong - such an overkill is not needed. You give no indication on the amount of knowledge you have about FAR rockets, so I just assume you are new to it, forgive me if this is not true.

There is a whole config menu, which is/was the point of RealChutes to start with. Access it by clicking on the chute in question while in the Action Group Editing window.

Chris teleported us to 2142 Does this mean we get teleport to surface systems instead of parachutes?

If you are talking about PF, then no, the fairing bases have no decouplers inside them. They never did.

Something is going on with the Globe VI SRB, I didn't touch TweakScale for it, I even deleted all of TS' cfgs to avoid the SRB being modifiable. However each time I go to the VAB and load that assembly it comes up with slightly spaced Globe VI's with Null reference errors on their load and the game crashes immediately when trying to launch the rocket like this. If I pick them up and reattach them - it launches just fine, even though it throws a bunch of Null reference errors. https://www.dropbox.com/s/nr6c2nzbfba61gz/Screenshot%202014-07-24%2022.00.38.png Here's the output log:https://www.dropbox.com/s/k5twb9o2ijvqihd/output_log%20%286%29.txt

I am sorry for the ignorance, but I read through your post and didn't get what exactly did you fix and what is the effect of that cfg you created?

Kind of a strange question, but why would you ever use ATM in x64? Unless your RAM is less than 8 Gb I guess...which would most likely mean your GPU and CPU are about 4-5 years behind the current generation too, in which case there would be point to use ATM.

Just please notify us when you do update the download. From the info in the past few pages I am not sure if I should dl the pack and give it a try, or I should wait until you put out an "official .24" update.

KW Rocketry was updated to v.2.6, so whatever links the people here give you, will not be relevant to the current version of KWR, and are more than likely to mess the whole pack up.

Are you running the x64 bit exe? Steam does not do that by default. Using x64 bit should allow you to use RAM way beyond your computer's capability, so any crash is not related to that. If your game crashes with a KSP error window(the one that has only Ok as a button and the date of the output folder), then the error is probably caused by a mod or the game itself. If, however, you crash with windows errors - it means you are not running the 64-bit game and the 32-bit is running out of memory. You also did not include a single KSP output log. Just stating random stuff does not really help mod devs help you.

If on load you are getting a fine little white text under the loading bar, stating MM changes - then MM is working. If this text does not appear it simply means you are not doing something correctly. The fix works just fine.

HotRockets breaks craft made with it, and you will not be able to fix them without destroying them and relaunching them. It is not currently compatible with the new part modules introduced with .24 and KW.